Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations establishing a safe, idempotent read, the description discloses data provenance, page-coverage information, and the important limitation that no search volumes are known. Freshness and the precise suggestion sources remain unspecified, but the disclosed behavior is useful and consistent with the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences front-load the result content and source, then immediately state the search-volume limitation. Every phrase contributes useful invocation or interpretation information without unnecessary repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-argument read-only tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential result content and its principal limitation. It could be more complete by explaining freshness, how the current business is determined, and how this tool differs from find_searches.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters requiring explanation, so the zero-parameter baseline applies. The description usefully clarifies the implicit scope as 'what this business does,' though it does not explain how that business context is selected.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource as real business-related searches, explains that they come from search suggestions, and says each result indicates whether a page already exists. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the similarly named find_searches or the position-checking siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The wording implies use for query discovery and identifying searches without existing pages, while the volume warning discourages using it for demand sizing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or direction to an alternative such as find_searches, check_google_positions, or google_positions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.